Forum: Obsessive March Madness and other kinds

Published 5:18 pm, Monday, March 14, 2016

ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE PHOTO
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s driving legal philosophy was termed originalism, namely that the Constitution be interpreted by the intent of its authors.

ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE PHOTO
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s driving legal philosophy was termed originalism, namely that the Constitution be interpreted by the intent of its authors.

Photo: AP

Forum: Obsessive March Madness and other kinds

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

It’s March, when men’s college Division 1 basketball — and in Connecticut, women’s as well — begins to be literally taken as religion. But this March there are other movements in the forefront, and the feelings are every bit as rabid.

For some it’s regarding the Constitution, especially with the Supreme Court nomination battle ahead. And for some in this political season, it’s judging the level of each candidate’s religious devotion, especially in recent years. And then we’ll get back to the ultimate madness: predictions.

Regarding the Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died last month due to coronary artery disease, obesity, and “other elements which likely contributed to his death.” Mr. Scalia’s driving legal philosophy was termed originalism, namely that the Constitution be interpreted by the intent of its authors, in their 1770s world. And that’s a double-edged sword, including (among other things) the choice and timetable of his successor.

In certain philosophical respects, I am in agreement with Scalia. The very idea of the First Amendment (and there’s a very good reason that it was the first one), guaranteeing no established state religion, freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble was, is, and should forever be timeless.

Where many — including myself — have a problem is that the social, human, and technological changes that have happened in our world show the undeniable need for our wonderful Constitution to be made, shall we say, more wonderful. Slavery, everyone would agree had to go. The voting rights of women had to arrive. And the Second Amendment based on 1770s pistols and rifles (single shot, muzzle loaded), could not have foreseen the lethal evolution of weaponry that we have come to know, in many cases to our national sadness. But before (some of) you get angry about this limitation on firepower, hold your fire. Because would you really want our country’s defense limited strictly by what the Constitution said? Well, consider this excerpt from Section 8, Powers of Congress: “The Congress shall have the power to ... raise and support Armies. ... To provide and maintain a Navy.” Not one blessed word about an Air Force. Well duh, because airplanes hadn’t been invented. Which is why certain parts of the Constitution can’t be timeless because innovation and science aren’t either, thus the need for amendments. But as our calendar has not been affected by any sort of invention or evolution, and a president’s term is still four years, our president indeed has a constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court replacement for Mr. Scalia. And while he might hate to say so were he still alive and if another of his conservative peers had passed instead, I think grumpy old Antonin might just have gone along with me on this one, maybe. Or he’d simply have changed the subject…

Religion in politics

This subject has often reared its ugly head, but in recent election cycles it has become much more a factor than ever. There is no clearer example, for better or worse (and I don’t believe better) of this trend, then the philosophy of Mr. Ted Cruz. Now that Mr. Cruz has (by his own definition at least) taken “control” of the presidential race by being the “only one who can challenge Donald Trump,” it’s worth taking a look at his view toward religion, which according to him is the most important thing in his life. He recently stated that “only he who kneels daily should be fit to serve as commander in chief.” The constitutional contradiction of his “requirement” aside, it presents a number of interesting recommendations and dilemmas.

For one, this qualifier excludes Jews as ever being worthy to serve, since Jews do not kneel daily, but only during their high holy days. Many Protestants, including those who pray daily, do not regularly prostrate themselves before the Lord even if they sincerely give themselves to God in prayer. Catholics, my wife informs me, would invariably show such devotion at their Sunday Mass, but not daily. There is, however, one major religion in which those who are devout pray five times a day and most certainly kneel during each of these prayers, and they are of course, Muslims. So are we to trust Ted, and take him at his word? Jews who are fools enough to support this man should factor this when assessing his supposed devotion to Israel. But Muslims should rejoice, because according to Ted Cruz’s own words they are most fit to serve as our president. Now to those who would defend him and say he’s not duplicitous but rather just woefully uninformed? I would say both of the above. And you think Donald Trump is dangerous…

The madness of predictions

First on men’s basketball, I predict the winner will be Michigan State due to the sheer talent on their team and one of the best coaches in tournament play, Mr. Tom Izzo. For the women, in keeping with the mission of realfoxnews.com (my blog) to “inform, amuse and annoy,” I’m predicting Notre Dame to be the national champion. They have close to the same talent as UConn and will be playing home games in the Final Four, which is in Indiana this year. And I really hope I’m wrong.

Politically, I’m predicting Hillary will get the nomination but it’s going to be a harder battle than people expect. Her VP candidate will be Julian Castro or Sherrod Brown, and for good measure, I think Bernie Sanders’ VP (should he win) will also be Julian Castro or Sherrod Brown.

For the Republicans, a while back I (alas) predicted Marco Rubio so I will stick with it, and his VP will be John Kasich. If by some long shot Kasich is the nominee, I predict his VP will be Marco Rubio. As for Ted Cruz and Donald Trump (the current logical favorite) I cannot predict their VP candidate since I believe they both want it to be themselves.

Norman L. Bender of Woodbridge is a retired businessman and a veteran and is a lifelong New Haven-area resident.